Menu Close
It’s Rally Time Patriots

Newsletter | May 16, 2024

American Eagle over American Flag

The coming months will be some of the most trying in our nation’s history as the 2024 election season heats up. With breaking news this week that the two leading 2024 presidential candidates have agreed to debate each other at least twice, one thing is certain: The 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, will finally get a chance to confront his accuser. He might ask whether all those indictments brought by his successor’s partisan hacks mean he’s really a threat to America or…just Joe Biden.

The last thing the current President wants is to let his record speak for itself. His open borders policy has ushered 7 million, and counting, illegal aliens into the country he is sworn to protect. The felons who have entered under his watch have contributed to the soaring crime rates in virtually every major city. Inflation continues to surge to historic levels and American families feel it every day at the grocery store and the gas pump. The White House’s climate change agenda and other boutique policies are crushing American industry while boosting China’s economy.

And it’s bad abroad, too. The administration continues to fund an endless and unwinnable war on the borders of nuclear-armed Russia. America’s trillion-dollar Navy can’t or won’t stop Iranian-backed Houthi rebels from threatening shipping lanes in the Red Sea. And U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere reconsider their commitments, and loyalties, as they watch the White House betray longtime regional partner Israel to support a murderous Palestinian terror organization.

Everyone can see America, and the world, was better off when Trump was in charge. It seems Biden’s only play is to paint Trump as public enemy number one. With CNN hosting the first debate on June 27 and ABC hosting the rematch on September 10, it is doubtless the moderators will help flesh out the false narrative, cribbing lines from Trump’s torturers — Jack Smith, Fani Willis, and Alvin Bragg — anything to prop up the increasingly feeble incumbent.

Trump could play it for laughs if he likes and wear a black cape, top hat, and a fake mustache like a silent movie villain. But the opposition leader knows there’s nothing funny about what’s happened to our country in the last four years. He wears the scars to show what happens when the ruling party weaponizes the justice system to turn our constitutional republic into a banana republic. Sure, Trump is one of the most entertaining and engaging speakers in our long history, but he’ll be playing for keeps.

It’s a matter of life and death for our country. So, what we’ll be watching is a real-time enactment of America at the crossroads. The Biden administration has pushed us to the edge of the abyss — are we going to go over the edge and fall through space until we hit rock bottom? Or are Americans going to choose to join forces and put an end to this death spiral? Do we choose national suicide or a revival of American greatness? It’s rally time Patriots. We were meant for this time. It’s our time to fight for America’s future.

Please participate in our Reader’s Survey. Your insights and thoughts are important as we learn what is on the minds and in the hearts of our fellow Americans. We read them all and share some of them Mondays at 9 a.m. during America’s Future live broadcasts with our Executive Director Mary O’Neill on America’s Mondays With Mary. Thank You! 

America Patriots - Mike Gonzalez-Cornell Gorka

Mike Gonzalez and Katharine Cornell Gorka are co-authors of the recently published NextGen Marxism: What It Is And How To Combat It, an amazingly timely book about the dark inner workings of the radical left’s destructive agenda in the United States. We spoke with Katie and Mike recently about the ugly specter that’s possessed the rising generation, the protests that have roiled college campuses across America, and how to fight back and save our country.

How is Next Gen Marxism different from what we know as regular Marxism?

Marx wrote all of history could be boiled down to an epic struggle between “the oppressor and oppressed.” That idea has survived undistilled from the original Marxism to this day. But that original Marxism emphasized economic relationships. The oppressed were the workers, and the oppressors were the factory owners. From the 1920s onward, Marxist ideologues realized that the workers adopted cultural ideas that made them uninterested in revolution. That was the “cultural Marxist” iteration. As this new Marxism came to the United States, Marxist thinkers thought that the oppressed that would become the new revolutionaries would hail from the members of the “marginalized” groups concocted along race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, status as a “colonized” population, etc. That is what constitutes “NextGen Marxism.” The focus is still on power—on who is perceived to hold power, with the revolutionaries being those who want to take power. One other key distinction between the old and new Marxism is that Marx believed the workers would rise up spontaneously to overthrow the bourgeoisie. But that has never happened. So today’s NextGen Marxists have adapted Lenin’s strategy as adapted by Saul Alinsky for American circumstances, of using propaganda to create a sense of grievance and victimhood, and then organizing the oppressed to start a revolution. All that is NextGen Marxism.

Does Next Gen Marxism influence the pro-terror demonstrations on college campuses in cities across the country?

NextGen Marxism is the reason there are pro-Hamas demonstrations on college campuses. The students have been indoctrinated from early on to look at life through the Marxian “oppressed v. oppressor” mindset. They got to college by writing essays on how they have been oppressed, or how they are social justice warriors who are allies to the oppressed, so they are pre-selected to have a critical mass of students at selective campuses who have this mindset already. The professors have been hired and promoted depending on how much they adhere to this ruling orthodoxy—the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pledges they are asked to sign being but the most blatant example of this. All this creates a toxic environment that all but assures support for the Palestinian cause, no matter how repelling Hamas’s actions in Israel on Oct. 7 were. NextGen Marxism produced the shock troops that Palestinian groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Samindoun use for street protests.

Do Next Gen Marxists have an end state or utopia in mind, or is the purpose simply to create chaos and destabilize America?

From the beginning, Marxists have defined their end state as a world in which marriage and the traditional family are gone—Marx himself called for the “abolition of the family.” They also call for an end to private property, but not of course for party leaders. As we have seen time and time again, from the Bolsheviks to Black Lives Matter, what they really want is private property in their hands. NextGen Marxists say they want the overthrow of the American system as it currently stands, but in fact they have not done much to define their ultimate end state. As George Santayana said of Friedrich Nietzsche, “he hated with clearness, if he did not know what to love.”

How can we fight NextGen Marxism?

The first step in fighting it is to understand it. Much of what is driving Americans today could be called misplaced compassion. They believe they are doing the right thing in supporting gender ideology or Black Lives Matter or Palestinian protestors. But if they better understood the destructive and power-obsessed worldview behind these movements, they would see things differently. So we must understand it, we must call it out, we must expose the nefarious forces helping to fuel it—including some of America’s most entrenched enemies—China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba. We have to work together to speak out against it. Our political, corporate, and academic leaders have to root it out. It is also important that we understand that DEI, which has so pervaded our institutions, is in fact the gateway to Marxism.

What is your prayer for America?

We are both optimistic about America. That doesn’t mean that we think the job is done and NextGen Marxism has been defeated, but that there’s enough opposition to the new orthodoxy to organize a resistance against. The climate of opinion has been turning since the 2020 BLM riots, when the gatekeepers of our cultural institutions surrendered and accepted such fallacies as ideas that we live with systemic racism or oppressive structures. Americans began to turn hard against this as early as 2021. In late 2023, the support the terrorists have received from college students has finally convinced many, even in the center and the center left, that something has gone profoundly wrong with our universities. Our prayer is that politicians at all levels will finally get the message.

Editor’s Note: To read other Speaking With American Patriots interviews, please click here.

Play Video about GITF WA State Recap

Hundreds of individuals attended America’s Future Get In The Fight Washington State summit on April 26, 2024, and a full day of training programs the next day to gain the knowledge and tools to help mobilize their local communities to combat child exploitation and trafficking. Watch the recap video above to learn more, and consider registering for the next Get In The Fight campaign, scheduled for Friday and Saturday, June 14th and 15th, at Portage Community Chapel in Ravenna in Ohio. Click here for summit details, the training schedule, and to register for the Get In The Fight Ohio State campaign.

Following the Ohio event, America’s Future heads to Colorado on September 20th and 21st and Connecticut on October 4th and 5th. The campaigns are part of America’s Future Project Defend & Protect Our Children initiative. Individuals or organizations interested in coordinating a Get In The Fight campaign in their states are invited to email Lisa MacDonald, America’s Future Director of Strategic Planning, at [email protected]. Click here to join thousands of individuals who are part of America’s Future growing community-based network taking action to end the war on children.

Keeping You Informed
Supreme Court Mid-May Recap

On June 30, 2024, our Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will wrap up the current October Term 2023, resolving 70 cases.  To that end, in just forty-five days, landmark rulings in high-profile cases involving presidential immunity, January 6 prosecutorial misconduct, government overreach, government censorship by proxy, and other exceptional controversies, will be published and these questions of constitutional import and great public interest, along with others currently before the Court, will be settled.  Notwithstanding those watershed cases noted above, just today (May 16), the Court published three decisions bringing the total number of cases adjudicated this month to five and the total adjudications by the Court so far this term to 23.

The five SCOTUS rulings issued this month, including the three issued today (May 16, 2024) are summarized below. To stay informed about these important decisions, readers can access this term’s case highlights and rulings on our website here. To access the SCOTUS website for more information, please visit

Harrow v. Department of Defense (23-21)
ISSUE: Whether the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to file his or her petition requesting the Federal Circuit review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is jurisdictional.
RULING: No. “Title 5 U. S. C. §7703(b)(1)’s 60-day filing deadline for a federal employee to petition the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the MSPB is not jurisdictional.” – The judgment/dismissal of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded.

Smith v. Spizzirri (22-1218)
ISSUE: Whether §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels a federal district court to issue a stay and, therefore is prohibited from dismissing the suit when the lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration.
RULING: Yes. “When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §3, compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. (22-448) 
ISSUE: Whether Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the CFPB to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bureau’s duties, 12 U. S. C. §§5497(a)(1), (2), satisfies the Appropriations Clause.
RULING: Yes. “Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the CFPB to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bureau’s duties, 12 U. S. C. §§5497(a)(1), (2), satisfies the Appropriations Clause.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded. 

Culley v. Marshall (22-585) 
ISSUE: Whether the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing and a separate preliminary hearing in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property. 
RULING: No. “In civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.”– The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (22-1078)
ISSUE: Whether the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.
RULING: Yes. “The Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.

Editor’s Note: To read all the SCOTUS October Term 2023 Decisions updates, please click here.

When Justice Fails

While the Justice Department arrests patriots exercising their First Amendment rights, it wears blinders when it comes to protecting Americans against the invasion of illegals perpetuated by an administration intent on employing illegals as a mechanism to interfere with the upcoming election. Add in the fact that select nongovernmental organizations are making billions off the border crisis, including by trafficking vulnerable children; citizens are at a boiling point about these issues.

“Billions of dollars of grant funds are disbursed every year by federal agencies to Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), many of which also receive financial aid from groups affiliated with the United Nations…The river of accountability-free money has absolutely polluted the entire process,” reports the Florida Statewide Grand Jury through its Fifth Presentment. The Florida Grand Jury report is one of several formal filings submitted by the impaneled jurors investigating the impact of the border crisis in its state and around the country.

And now, citizens learned yesterday (May 15, 2024) following the release of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection monthly report that nearly 2M illegals have entered the country in the last six months alone, and this number does not include the “got-aways” – both known and unknown.

As noted above, there’s a strategy underpinning the escalation of illegals into America by those government officials breaking the law and betraying their duty to the nation: Votes.

States can take action. Ohio is one recent example. Two days ago, on May 14, 2024, “Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a directive to the 88 county boards of elections initiating a confirmation and removal process of non-citizens from the state’s voter registration rolls. Secretary LaRose also announced additional steps by his office to ‘conduct an annual review of the statewide voter registration database to identify persons who appear not to be United States citizens,’ as required by state law.”

Get involved with your state election officials and demand free and fair elections. Check out America’s Future Election Resource Library and contact the Justice Department to enforce the law. The future of America is at stake.

Tools Of Tyrants
Lawfare to Win Elections

The term “lawfare” is obviously derived from a combination of the words “law” and “warfare.”  It is used in several contexts, but here it is used to describe the calculated efforts of Leftist organizations and operatives to achieve electoral victories unfairly.  Through lawfare, victory is achieved not through the basic democratic approach of attracting the most votes from qualified voters but by manipulating and perverting the legal system to obtain an unfair electoral advantage.

Pre-2020 Election Rule Changes

The Constitution expressly vests authority in state legislatures to set the rules for federal and state elections.  Article I, Section 4 states: 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations….  [Emphasis added.]  

State legislatures have done their constitutional duty since the founding of the country without interference.  They determine the rules governing absentee ballots.  They determine the date by which voters must register to vote.  They decide whether a voter must show identification and a host of other issues designed to ensure elections are conducted fairly.  By and large, state courts have understood that they have no role in the process, as the Constitution is clear in having entrusted this responsibility to state legislatures.

And then came COVID.  In the months before the 2020 election, there was an unprecedented avalanche of “lawfare” suits, generally brought by Democrats working with Leftist organizations like the ACLU.  These suits sought at the state level to loosen the rules by which elections are held.  Leftist lawyers took full advantage of the COVID pandemic, demanding courts override state election laws to make voting “easier and safer.”  By August 31, 2020, 245 lawsuits in 45 states against state election integrity laws had been filed on “COVID” grounds alone.  The lawsuits demanded expanded mail-in voting, more early voting, ballot drop boxes, and acceptance of absentee ballots not received until after Election Day.  All of these changes were believed to have created more favorable conditions for Democrat candidates.

The Democrats’ top election lawyer is Marc Elias, who first drew attention after his work orchestrating Al Franken’s recount challenge to Minnesota GOP Senator Norm Coleman, which gained the Democrats the 60-vote Senate margin they needed to pass Obamacare.  Elias had already made his mark on history, having been credited with playing a key role in fashioning the false Russiagate narrative used against President Trump: 

Elias, who worked for the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee, is perhaps best known for commissioning opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Described as the “Democratic general directing an army of left-wing lawyers in their bid to win back the Senate and take down President Donald Trump,” Elias is “known for his hyper-aggressive legal battles to overturn state election laws … including voter ID and absentee ballot witness requirements, and bans on ballot harvesting,” all to aid Democrats.  The Democratic National Committee alone paid Perkins Coie, Elias’ firm at the time, more than $11 million to attack state election integrity laws in 2020.

As former federal prosecutor Sol Wisenberg notes, sometimes the Democrats were pushing against an open door:

There was lawfare practiced openly.  It was done … by the Democrats …. [T]hey entered into consent decrees with friendly state attorney generals that ended up changing state election safeguards.  It allowed for earlier voting.  It allowed for absentee and mail-in balloting.  There is nothing wrong with that if people of a state, a legislature of a state votes for it.  But when it’s done through a consent decree or … a judge that has … an illegitimate interpretation of state statutory law that’s a problem.

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

Before the 2020 election, Democrat lawyers sought an election rule change from the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The state court overrode a Pennsylvania state law which required mail-in ballots be received by 8:00 p.m. on election night in order to be counted.  The court created a three-day late-arrival “grace period” out of whole cloth.  Citing to possible “mail delays caused by the COVID pandemic,” the state court usurped the authority of the state legislature, overriding state law.  Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Bookvar (Sept. 17, 2020).

On September 20, 2020, the Pennsylvania Republican Party sought an emergency stay of the state court decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.  Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have granted the request, but it failed on a split vote of 4-4, as Chief Justice Roberts voted against consideration.  (Justice Ginsburg died two days before, on September 18.)  The Republican Party again came to the Supreme Court to seek relief before the election, but on October 28, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to expedite the case, citing the proximity to the election.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch blamed the Court itself for not hearing the case when there was time to decide it.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett had been sworn in on October 26, 2020, but declined to participate in that decision, perhaps to avoid looking as if she was there to serve the interests of President Trump.

After the election, on February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court declined to review the case over the dissents of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, and the Pennsylvania court’s illegitimate ruling was allowed to stand.

Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al.

At least one state took the initiative to ask the Supreme Court, in an original action filed directly in the High Court, to stop the abuses at the state level.  The State of Texas brought an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s actions, as well as similar actions in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin since it affected voting in a race for President.  Current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson led a group of 126 Congressmen to file an amicus brief in support of Texas’ suit.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, contending that Texas would have no standing to challenge what happened in Pennsylvania and the other states as it did not affect Texas in a Presidential election.  Texas v. Pennsylvania, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5994 (2020).  Curiously, in Trump v. Anderson, discussed below, in order to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot, the Supreme Court relied on the simple truth that how one state conducts a presidential election does affect all the other states.

Moore v. Harper

Sadly, last year, in a case involving apportionment of legislative seats, the U.S. Supreme Court has thrown open the door to even more Democrat state courts to change election laws to make election fraud easier.  By judicial fiat, the Supreme Court negated the terms of the Elections Clause which gives authority over elections to state legislatures.

The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that “[p]artisan gerrymandering violates the declaration of rights in the North Carolina Constitution” and threw out the plan, despite the U.S. Constitution’s clear placement of the conduct of elections in the state legislatures.  Harper v. Hall, 380 N.C. 317, 366 (N.C. 2022).  America’s Future filed an amicus brief in support of this clear reading of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the North Carolina court, reasoning that even though “partisan gerrymandering” is a “nonjusticiable” issue in federal court, state courts could still intervene — despite the complete lack of mention of state courts in the U.S. Constitution, and its express textual commitment of the issue to the people’s elected legislatures.  Moore v. Harper, 143 S. Ct. 2065 (2023).

Keeping Political Opponents off the Ballot

An even more aggressive strategy to affect the 2024 election was designed by two law professors, often described in the mainstream media as being “conservatives” and “originalists,” who devised a brand-new legal theory that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to keep former President Trump off the ballot for having participated in an insurrection against the United States.  Initially, it is clear that President Trump was never even charged, to say nothing of not being convicted of, the federal crime of insurrection.  But additionally, the text of Section 3:  (i) does not apply to persons who have served as President; (ii) it does not apply to the President who takes a unique oath specified in the Constitution; and (iii) does not apply to serving as President.  The text of the Amendment in no way deterred these two law professors from advancing this lawfare theory, because they personally did not agree with what Section 3 actually states:

We do not buy it.  [It causes] a facially implausible consequence: an insurrectionist President is not covered … though nearly every other federal or state office holder is…. This makes little sense….  [T]he argument rather implausibly splits linguistic hairs….  [T]he argument must rely … on fine parsing of prepositional phrases.  [W. Baude & M. Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” 172 U. PENN. L. REV. forthcoming at 108-09 (emphasis added).]

The arguments against this lawfare theory invented by lawfare lawyers were spelled out by America’s Future in an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2024.  Trump asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.  In one of the few decisions that helps restore the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court, it ruled unanimously that this lawfare theory, coauthored by a former clerk to Chief Justice Roberts, was bogus, ordering states not to use it to keep Trump off the ballot.  Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (March 4, 2024).

Prosecuting Political Opponents

One of the characteristics of a “banana republic” is the prosecution and jailing of leading political opponents.  America could be on the verge of becoming a “banana republic.”  In every country, it is difficult to serve as President while incarcerated.  When debating Hillary Clinton, President Trump famously said, “lock her up,” but never took any such action.  Those who criticized Trump for making that statement are trying to do what they criticized.

Donald Trump is the first former President of the United States to be indicted after leaving office for an alleged crime committed while President.  Trump has been indicted in four separate jurisdictions since leaving office in January 2021: two federal (District of Columbia and Florida) and two state (Georgia and New York).  These indictments include 91 separate federal and state charges, causing Trump to be facing felony charges that, combined, carry maximum prison sentences of 717.5 years.

Partisan politics infects every aspect of these prosecutions.  The two state prosecutors obtaining these indictments were both Democrats who opposed Trump’s election in 2020 and now oppose him in 2024.  The federal charges were brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who, in turn, was appointed by Democrat President Biden.  Democrat Biden and Republican Trump are long-standing political rivals.  As Vice President, Biden supported Democrat Hillary Clinton against Trump in the 2016 Presidential race and ran against Trump in the 2020 presidential election.  In 2022, Fani Willis, the prosecutor in Georgia, appointed Nathan Wade as special prosecutor.  Before Trump was indicted, Wade attended two meetings in 2022 with White House personnelfor which he billed Fulton County.

These and other facts were brought to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court by America’s Future in an amicus brieffiled on March 19, 2024.  The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case in June 2024.

Editor’s Note: To read the articles in this series, please click here.

Reminders and Updates

Get In The Fight Ohio State campaign is around the corner. Register today to attend the Ohio State Summit and Training Programs on June 14 and 15 at Portage Community Chapel in Ravenna, OH. Get the facts and learn what you can do in your community to help end child exploitation and trafficking.

LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: Now you can tune in every week on Spotify to America’s Mondays With Mary and listen to our Executive Director Mary O’Neill’s report on the comments and insights we receive from our fellow Americans to our weekly Reader’s Survey. Listen and learn what’s on their minds and in their hearts and get the latest news about America’s Future activities and updates.

PEOPLE ARE TALKING: Thousands of our newsletter readers tell us that our articles are thought-provoking, increase their knowledge about the history and traditions of America, and keep them informed about the current state of affairs.   If you missed one of our weekly newsletters or want to revisit a past edition, you can access them here.

SHOP TIL YOU STOP: We hope you love America’s Future online shop display and ease of accessing your favorite items! There are many new products, including a full assortment of tees for the whole family, a wide range of accessories like coffee mugs and totes, and a special line dedicated to our Project Defend & Protect Our Children. Thank you for your support!

STAY CONNECTED: You’ll find America’s Future on your favorite social media platforms. Thank you for remembering to follow us and please share our posts.

Support America’s Future

America’s Future is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All donations are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.